Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Franklin County, OH--sued for taking Islam into account

Child Protection Services officials in Franklin County, OH, have been sued for, among other things, documenting the fact that parents whose children were removed because of violent abuse were Muslims. The officials concluded that the mother and stepfather severely beat the 16-year-old son for "not being a good Muslim." The daughters were also removed after the parents allegedly forced them to work excessively long hours in the family store and failed to provide proper medical care; because the daughters were not placed in a Muslim foster home, one of them actually (I know this will shock you) chose to sing in the church choir of her foster family.

In return, the family sued the agency in 2006. (The case must be moving very slowly to be in the news in 2011.) The judge has dismissed charges against everyone but one case worker, who has been grilled for having noted in the case file, in relation to the conflict between the parents and the son, that the parents were "strict Muslims." The family's lawyer asked her whether she would have noted that parents were "strict Christians." (Ya think?) Naturally, the case worker answered that she might have done so in parallel circumstances.

If the name "Franklin County, OH" sounds familiar to you, it should. That was the county in which the Rifqa Bary hullabaloo took place, or at least from which it started. It was noteworthy that Franklin County CPS refused to investigate Rifqa's allegations of her father's threats against her and also that both the judge and the social workers were adamant that Islam not be brought into the case in any form, despite the fact that Rifqa herself insisted that Islam was relevant and was the cause of her father's threats.

I imagine that many local agencies would take the same line that Franklin County took in Rifqa's case. It didn't require much more explanation than a general desire not to rile the Muslims. But the fact that there was apparently already one punitive lawsuit taking place because Franklin County dared to notice the role of Islam in a child abuse case does also have some explanatory force. The burned child fears the fire.

Well, johnt, the beaten son was taken away, though the daughters were later returned. In a sense one could say that this meant they weren't granted a right to beat him. However, the lawsuit is clearly intended to punish the CPS for noticing that Islam had _anything_ to do with the situation. It sounds to me like the social worker is answering back with some justifiable spunk, but it remains to be seen how the suit will turn out. Such things are obviously meant to influence the later behavior of the agency, regardless of how they go in the courts.

Lydia, noted. Does despair cloud my judgment?
I have in mind the moods of the free floating relativists referred to by default as the "elite", I assume by reason of their reading John Grisham books and having semi-literate editors. In an environment massaged by this elite don't be surprised if the son is returned to his pugnacious parents, who in his absence are probably applying their dubious energies to their house pets, if they haven't already been boiled and eaten.
But you touch upon unhappy possibilities in your response to my honored self.
Then there is the Oklahoma case where a referendum banning international and sharia LAW, not practice but law, from the State's body of law. A stay issued of course by a federal judge on grounds of "free exercise", blah & etc, was placed by one Vicki Miles-LaGrange, whose decision may yet land her on the Supreme Court, her credentials now being impeccable.
"Free exercise" you see! In law.
Kafka couldn't do better.

Can the CPS person possibly just plain note that the PARENTS said that it was because they were Muslim? That's the sort of thing I would expect to hear at least some of the time: Well, you see, according to our Muslim beliefs..." Then it is just a matter of the CPS person taking them at their own word. If they thought it was important, why should CPS not?

Mind you, I don't like the prospect of CPS getting away with bad practices, and they have given enough grief to practicing Christians precisely because they were Christians, that it is not surprising to see something like this happen to Muslims. But I am not one of the people who think that the government ought to pretend to be 100 % blind to _which_ religion someone holds.

I doubt they were supposed to note it at all. And considering that the mother and stepfather were apparently horribly beating their 16-year-old for being a bad Muslim, it seems as though CPS definitely should note it. And should have noted it if there were (God forbid) a parallel case with Christians. That parents are severely beating a child over religion is a fact of the case. This looks to me like an actual case of CPS doing its job, though perhaps returning the girls wasn't such a great idea. I notice that the girls _voluntarily_ went to church with the foster family and yet are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. That looks artificial to me. I wouldn't bet on a good life for those girls.

(In other news, a 13-year-old San Bernardino girl named Jesse Bender has been found after a nationwide search. Turns out she was hiding from her family--stepfather Muslim--out of fear of being taken to Pakistan for a forced marriage. She's been taken into state custody, which is certainly the right thing to do. Looks like the San Bern. CPS is taking her worries seriously.)

As an astute WWWTW commentator pointed out a few weeks ago, it's not all about suicide bombers. There's a toad under the rocks here, and not by a long shot is it all about tall buildings and large airplanes.
It is a religion, the only religion, that is about violence, a cornerstone of a type of faith unlike any other.
But we have civil service pensions to worry about, so let us not be distracted by minutiae.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.